And though I take a strong stance and insist men and women are predisposed by their sex to play certain roles in society, I will admit that is not always the case. Also, I will admit that it is best that ONE person lead and ONE person follow, REGARDLESS OF SEX.

In short, I put more importance and emphasis on leadership dynamics than mythical gender equality because, frankly, it is more important to have ONE leader than multiple leaders regardless of who has what gender and what gender has historically been given presumed leadership.

Thus, why it's OK to have a gal in charge.

Not every man is born an alpha male, kick ass, John Wayne, type guy....you know...like me (just kidding...no not really).

Nor is every female born an submissive, compliant chick.

And I will even go so far as to say that there are many instances where the man does not wear the pants in the family and the woman does AND that such an arrangement is OPTIMAL because, once again, it is better to have ONE leader than two, regardless of genders.

The reason I bring this up is because not all men can be alpha and neither can all women be the first officer. Sometimes women DO display superior leadership skills and sometimes men DO display superior supportive skills and it is neither your nor my right to criticize such arrangements. Truth be told, if we are going for maximum freedom and maximum happiness, there are some men out there who need a female leader and there are some female leaders that need some supporting males. We should not judge or be critical of such arrangements, but supportive because...well...it works.

You all know the couple. The woman wears the pants in the family and the guy is a little timid.

But does it work?

Sure it does!

Sometimes men aren't cut out to be the leader.

And sometimes women aren't cut out to be the follower.

Both should thank the heavens they have each other and none of us should judge them for it.

7 comments:

Most men are not alphas. Most men are not leader types. Neither are most women. Most people are followers, sheep, and that's pretty much ok for the types of jobs they have to do and lives they lead.

Most folk are ordinary workers, office drones, whatever. They come home to their spouses (hopefully they have one) and children who are also the same - ordinary.

There is nothing wrong with it.

I think where a lot of people have a problem is thinking that they are a special snowflake, somehow better than the next guy or gal, or fundamentally different, when they are not.

The thought of not being "special" (or Alpha) scares them. To face their own averageness, their own ordinariness, makes them depressed.

I think that could be why the US has such high depression and dissatisfaction with life stats. The people here are not content. Perhaps because they compare themselves to other people they may or may not know in real life (offline)?

Anyway, most couples do not operate on a binary "leader/follower" model because intimate relationships don't work that way.

Americans need to learn to be content with what they've got. And you really do have a lot more in material capital than many people the world over.

But because you are not content with what you got, that makes it impossible for you to achieve the happiness and inner peace that I have found in a number of foreign cultures that evades the discontent people here.

Even if people are atheists, no problem. But Americans seriously need to take up some sort of cognitive practice for contentment.

Buddhism and Jainism are both often referred to as atheistic "religions".

Atheist Americans should look into their meditational practices so that they too can become happy and content.

Theistic Americans can take up the more theistic forms of meditation.

Expressing gratitude for what one DOES have (and again, most Americans do have a lot of 'stuff') is the first step.

i believe it is of the utmost importance that we not step on each other's toes, and allow for personal greatness of all. this does NOT, however mean affirmative action, exemptions from rules in the game of life, or restricting the actions and motivations of others to "even out the game".

a truly empowered woman, or man, is one who takes risks, accepts consequence, and takes pride in personal greatness. virtue and vice alike.

regardless of gender, orientation, race, religion, etc. we should allow people to fail, and applaud true success.

i know strong women, i know weak men. stereotypes can only be beat by actual change, not by reprogramming people's conceptions of generalizations to be more politically correct. as not to hurt peoples feelings.

Green Grass, it's not about Leadership, it'about leadership - relative leadership. No social structure can thrive (or even survive long) without a primary leader, a final authority. Having a primary leader does not preclude "... give and take. Input, output. Discussions, disagreements, negotiations, compromises, etc."

I would argue that one of the reasons many Americans aren't content is that they are uneasy in the definition of their roles in their primary relationships. The one with the greater relative leadership skills is not allowed to lead and the one with the lesser leadership skills is not allowed to follow, because it is now politically incorrect to say "we're not quite equal." A genuine "First Officer" is not a spineless malleable doormat; if he/she were, he/she wouldn't be good "First Officer" material.

You appear to have accepted the modern permutation of the leader-follower relationship, which is not the leader-follower relationship upon which all of civilization was built.

The difference between an Alpha and not-Alpha male can be discerned by their behavioural response when the female of the species refuses to accept their invitation to date or refuses to hand over her cell phone number to them.The Alpha male will typically respond with wide eyes and a snarl on his face. He will then attempt to feign disappoint (rather badly) by throwing a temper tantrum that would do any two year old proud before stalking off without a further word.

The "non"-Alpha will generally take it on the chin and continue to act like an adult.

The female in question will continue to respect the latter and deride the former to all her girlfriends as he stalks off.

Indeed.. Those skills and those traits can be found in both gender. However..would a woman be attracted to a supportive husband that follows? Would a supportive, following husband can keep his self-esteem high enough for being the follower?

Would this man be attracetd to the woman that may boss him around...

Red pill wisdom would suggest that that kind of relationship would inevitably fail due to lack of attraction...

But hey...Humans are also a reasonable species.. overcoming its own instincts.

Over the years I've seen a few couples where the woman wore the pants and the man followed. And Ican't think of a single one of these relationships that are stillintact. Invariably the alpha woman detonates the relationship...because she wants what ALL real women want....a MAN. Women, no matter how competent, how driven or how strong are still women and women want a man they look UP to...not back at. Many of these females have ended up alone as they simply cannot respect a man they can lead around but refuse to follow a man who is strong enough to stand up to them.